TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e manufacturing plant i.e. generating power station situated at Sabarmati, Ahmedabad-5. They are restrained from entering into the said premises for any purpose except for the due discharge of their legitimate duties. They are also restrained from causing any damage or loss or destruction or in any way dealing with or interfering with the machinery, installations, transformers, sub-stations, furniture, fixtures, records and all the every other property, movable and immovable of the plaintiff-Company in any manner whatsoever, There shall be no order as to costs. The decree shall be drawn in the above terms. Order accordingly." Aggrieved by the said decree the 1st respondent has preferred First Appeal No. 91 of 1989, and also filed Civil Application No. 39 of 1989, praying to condone the delay of 290 days. The application for condonation of delay was filed with reasons stated therein. Affidavit-in-reply was filed by the appellant herein, refuting the averments made in the petition filed, with a prayer for condoning the delay. The learned single Judge, condoned the delay, observing: "Sufficient cause shown. Delay condoned. Rule made absolute accordingly." The learned Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was elected as a General Secretary of the applicant-Union at the election held in the year 1988. It is further averred that such a statement has been intentionally made with a mala fide motive to mislead this Court. No doubt, in this affidavit-in-reply, the appellant has also stated that Shri S. B. Patel is holding the portfolio of the General Secretary of the applicant-Union since 1986 and has continued as such after 1988 election. The appellant has finally stated that Shri S. B. Patel and the applicant-Union were aware about the pendency of the civil suit and the averment made in the application for condonation of delay as if Shri S. B. Patel does not know about the pendency of the suit is false and has been made with a mala fide intention to get the delay condoned. In the light of these averments, it was urged before the learned single Judge that the application for condonation of delay may be dismissed. The learned single Judge stating that sufficient cause is shown, condoned the delay. 5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant contended that in the absence of any reasoning given by the learned single Judge in respect of the affidavit-in-reply filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l state. 8. From the petition and the affidavits we have referred above, it is clear that the suit came to be filed much earlier to the election of Mr. Patel in the year 1986. It is also clear from the facts that Mr. Patel, General Secretary, was reelected in the year 1988. The learned single Judge, who had before him the petition and the affidavit-in-reply, would have definitely looked into those matters and has passed the order after applying his mind. It would have been better that some discussions were there made before such an order was passed. But that itself would not give a handle to the appellant herein to contend that the learned single Judge has not at all considered the affidavit-in-reply and other facts available before him. In this connection, we can usefully refer to the judgment in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, [1982] 1 SCR 187. In that case, the Supreme Court, referring to the decision rendered as early as 1912 in the case of T. V. Tulrajam Row v. M. K. B. V. Alagappa Chettiar, reported in ILR (1912) Mad 1, observed: "The trial Judge being a senior Court with vast experience of various branches of law occupying a very high status should be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n on merits. In the decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari [1976] 2 SCR 82, The Supreme Court has observed (para 9) : - "Discretionary exercise of power by a Court cannot be lightly interfered with by a Court of appeal x x x " In the decision in the case of Sital Prasad Saxena (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India [1985] 1 SCR 659, the Supreme Court dealing with the delay in bringing the LRs. of the deceased appellant on record, observed: "Once an appeal is pending in the High Court, the heirs are not expected to keep a constant watch on the continued existence of parties to the appeal before the High Court, which has a seat for away from where parties in rural areas may be residing. And in a traditional rural family the father may not have informed his son about the litigation in which he was involved and was a party. The rules of procedure under Order 22 are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties." In the decision in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop v. Mool Chand AIR 1983 SC 355 the Supreme Court observed: "Fairplay in action must inhere in judicial appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch as the name of Rathod finds a place in the array of defendants in the judgment rendered by the City Civil Court and in as much as the suit was filed as early as in 1983, the reasoning to the effect that Shri S. B.Patel, the present General Secretary was not aware of the proceedings until he received a letter from the appellant, is a reasonable explanation to be accepted. No doubt, the learned Advocate General, pointing out the chance of vakalatnama from Mr. Shah to another Shri Premchand to appear on behalf of the respondent's herein as early as 24-12-1987 states that it makes out a case that Shri S. B. Patel would have been aware of these proceedings on behalf of the respondent-Union. No doubt, he is not able to produce any vakalatnama signed by Shri S. B. Patel. Even assuming that there was a vakalatnama, which is not made out by record before us, it cannot be said that Shri S. B. Patel was aware of all the documents he has signed while acting as a General Secretary of the union concerned. The decree of the City Civil Court is dated 9-2-1988. The letter referred by Shri S. B. Patel, from which he was able to know the decree of the Court, is dated 22-11-1988. On 22-12-1988....